Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

Template:Scoutbasketball

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, without replacing the invocations. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scoutbasketball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a non-notable website with no evidence of being reliable, with the template being used for possible WP:Spam. Created by User:Ricardomm2 (suspected WP:SOCK), and used by User:Ricardomm (suspected sockmaster). —Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a dinkie site, and it looks like the creators have gone around trying to promote it. Definitely doesn't deserve its own template. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ricardomm has explicitly said that they're editing to try and gain more visits to their site. Blatant promotion. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expect this will be deletion without replacement by bare links? —PC-XT+ 07:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my !vote, PC-XT. "Scoutbasketball.com" is not the same thing as the widely known, used and cited recruiting evaluation service "Scout.com." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Deletion without replacement seems appropriate, here, due to the promotion and sock concerns as well as the source, itself, being questionable. —PC-XT+ 19:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, it's my faul. I'll read carefully the conditions before editing. Ricardomm (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

English association football captain navboxes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leicester City F.C. captains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bolton Wanderers F.C. captains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:West Ham United F.C. captains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thames Ironworks F.C. captains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Newcastle United F.C. captains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Further to recent consensus, this is FANCRUFT and not a useful guide to navigation. Giant Snowman 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - per previous consensus, being team captain is not significant enough. JMHamo (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the Snowman's nomination rationale. (And thank you for the thorough job in notifying the creator of these templates five times. ; ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox GP2 team

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox GP2 team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's unnecessary duplication of the Template:Infobox motor racing team. Also in the case of ART Grand Prix which will join Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, I think that DTM will be definetely more important series than GP2 Series. Cybervoron (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding notice - @Cybervoron: Please do not forget to notify the template creator about this pending TfD. You may use the templated TfD notice on the TfD instructions page. Thank you for your cooperation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator of this template last edited in August 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have provided notice of this TfD to the template creator on 21 February 2015: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, after replacing the mere 20 transclusions. Note: I have renamed the template to {{Infobox GP2 team}} in the interim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a particularly well designed template to be honest. The creator did not seem to take into account how the template would work on ex-teams, where it's far easier just to use the generic team infobox. Also consider the fact that the vast majority of GP2 outfits run teams in other equally notable motor racing series, which makes the focus this infobox places on GP2 rather unbalanced. QueenCake (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)del[reply]
comment should consider template:Infobox GP3 team as well. Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.